AI-assisted practical guide. Examples are hypothetical; these are proposed editorial methods, not reported research results.
A standfirst bridges a headline and the article body, offering a concise hook that reflects only the facts supplied. When AI drafts a standfirst, the chief risk is hallucination—adding details or emphatic language that go beyond the approved source material. To preserve journalistic integrity, the AI must be confined to a closed set of verified facts, with no allowance for external knowledge or speculative claims.
Prompting for Factual Constraint
Begin by giving the model a clear, bounded prompt that frames it as a cautious editor. For example: “Draft a one‑sentence standfirst using only the following approved facts. Do not introduce new information, adjectives that imply certainty not present in the text, or external context.” Then list the verified points exactly as they appear in the source. If the facts state that a new city park opens Tuesday and includes three ponds, the AI should produce a standfirst such as: “The city opens a new park this Tuesday featuring three ponds.” Any addition—e.g., calling the park the most beautiful in the region—indicates a breach of the constraint.
Handling Overstated Certainty
AI often converts nuanced language into absolute statements. When source material says a trend “is likely increasing,” a careless model might write that the trend “is definitely increasing.” To prevent this, review the draft for absolute modifiers like always, never, or certainly. If such wording appears, prompt the AI to mirror the original hedging, replacing definitive verbs with probabilistic ones (e.g., “is likely” instead of “is”). This step ensures the standfirst does not overpromise or mislead the reader about the article’s content.
Hypothetical example
Imagine the approved fictional fact list says that SolarStream's panels use recycled glass and have undergone laboratory testing. A proposed standfirst is “SolarStream's panels use recycled glass and have undergone laboratory testing.” That wording supplies no efficiency claim, test outcome or sequence of development. “Built after successful testing” would add chronology and success that the list does not establish. A human reviewer checks every adjective and time relationship against the supplied facts. If the result sounds plain, improve the surrounding article structure rather than invent a stronger claim.